Science – Senate Report Debunks "Consensus".
Not a member? Sign-up today!
harleyb761960
MaryLynn_
getbackerzoo
gabriel19671968
OlgaSuper
YoungSkipper
garier
WendyA.Haley
ChristinaB.Dowden
JoshuaL.Peters
RichardN.Little
JudithB.Mannion
ClaraD.Fuller
RonaldJ.Bond
DonettaF.Spaulding
cptnkrk
ThrillKillBill
orlando37
contentmanager
archetipo
anavrin
nitegarito
totalmania
GiorgosK
redbarin
flyonthewallzz
DiffeeOnline
rostag
Lappu
HUSSAIN786
mickoleon
Nathaniel.K.Gans
reviewer
m-cuz
vettenut
Truzseeker
ringingbells54
TonyByron
4cprocess
rappin4tay
THOMNH62
bonnieweelass
sixshot
Nowalive
wanderingmin
593)
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
SHABAM!
I give this thread 24 hours before Neo finds a way to remove it.
Those damn facts, so annoying to liberals!!!
He won't remove it but I guarantee you he'll sink it. :D
I was just kidding. It just irritates me how we are told how this site is "balanced" with its moderators, yet I have yet to see a SINGLE conservative moderator who activly comments and sinks votes like Neo does.
Balanced my ARSE.
I actually would like to know which, if any, of the moderators are conservatives. They used to have one that I know of but he mysteriously disappeared.
Intesting, Neo neg'ed my comment (oh sweet irony), yet no comment of his own.
Neo, since you are obviously active on this thread, care to comment or anyswer any of the questions posed by myself and AG?
Were are the supposed conservative moderators? If they exist, why do they not participate? Can you see where the lack of participation call into question the supposed balance of this site?
Heh heh, Neo always proves me right.
lol, and the silence is deafening....
"People are afraid of it only because they fear it"...
Neophile...
MUAHAHAAHAAHAAAA!!! The sky isn't falling, the sky isn't falling!
To oversimplify the need for a reduction of fossil fuel consumption to global warming is myopic since:
(1) dinitrogen pentoxide, sulfur trioxide, and carbon dioxide combustion byproducts harm the environment by precipitating as acid rain.
(2) fossil fuels are a nonrenewable resource, which necessitates research into alternative energy sources.
(3) our reliance on fossil fuels harms our national security as it ties us politically, economically, and militarily to the regions from which oil is extracted, some of which are the most volatile parts of the world
(4) prolonged inhalation of pollutants and airborne particles has been shown to exacerbate respiratory illnesses (asthma, lung cancer, allergies, etc.)
Whatever your reasons (global warming or not), fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced. I'm baffled by those who support strong measures to protect our national security, yet oppose strong measures to promote energy independence.
Furthermore, I don't understand why some people insist on wasting their time reading non-scientific journals when trying to educate themselves about climate change. As far as I can see, this article doesn't even present any novel, original scientific evidence to support its counterargument.
If you really want to learn how human pollution can affect climate change, then either:
1) Visit your local university and take an IR Spectrograph of carbon dioxide for yourself.
2) Take an undergraduate or graduate level class in climate science.
3) Read scientific journals presenting original evidence.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography...
There are dozens more articles to post, but those interested can start with these.
ROFLMAO! Too funny, MR.
I bet his next comment will be that he was quoting Cat. ; )
It is unknown to me that any new scientific idea has been universally accepted. It must also be remembered here that baseline observations about temperature changes of the atmosphere and oceans, and the unprecedented speed of glacial retreat (in our experience) are real, the only argument is about the cause. The cause is not very significant when your house has water in it half-way up the first level.
Let the scientists argue about causes, that's all like arguing about Bush"s and Clinton"s lies. What we should be doing is planning how to deal with effects, which seem very likely to come. Even if they never come, we have lost little, but if they do, we can have gained much.
You should plan for your toilet to plug and overflow, since it's something that happens when you least expect it, but not so infrequently that you forget that it can happen. As for the weather, you should expect snow, rain, drought, flood, tornado and the occasional hurricane to happen tomorrow morning - because neither meteorology or climatology is advanced enough to predict squat past 18 hours or so from now. As for whether or not you want to plan for everything that can possibly go wrong, how much cash do you have?? LOL!
We are between the last and the next Ice Age,,, this isn't the first nor the last time the cool heat cycle has or will happen
Probably so. So if it gets too hot and wet, just strike your tent, gather up your spears and wives, and move north and higher up. Just be careful of the other 6.5B people doing the same thing. They may want to eat your children and dogs when it is too dry to grow corn and wheat in the Midwest any more.
We are discussing a human catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, should even the least of the predictions happen, in terms of the habitability of our coasts, the sustainability of our agriculture and fisheries, the continuation of present wildlife distribution and migration patterns, etc. You trivialize, Sir, and it is amusing now. I sincerely hope that in 20 years I am called a blind fool and not you. Just tell me this: If 2500 doctors told you that you would die within six months, and 400 said that that could not definitively be concluded, would you write your will?
"It is unknown to me that any "new scientific idea" has been universally accepted".
Uhm what NEW scientific idea are you talking about? These Global climate catastrophes have been predicted since the late 1800's.
Do you comprehend what an insignificant amount of time 200 yrs is? How many species have we lost in that time, and how many driven to the brink of extinction in that time? How much hs our population increased in that time? My grandfather could walk within 500 yards of his home and gather a meal from the wild in an hour or so, less than 100 years ago. How many is that true of now?
"It is unknown to me that any "new scientific idea" has been universally accepted".
"Do you comprehend what an insignificant amount of time 200 yrs is?"
Yes I do now back to your original claim, please define this "new scientific idea"
What is NEW about global climate change disasters?
Example:
Is man flight (power) a "NEW" idea? A new concept that is still hard to get around?
How bout horseless carriages? DNA, computers, mass communication.
Global climate change disasters predictions have been around longer than any of the Realities listed as example.
So please define "new scientific idea"
The NEW idea is that the climate of the world is warming due at least in part to the physiochemical and biological activities of humans.
"These Global climate catastrophes have been predicted since the late 1800's."
...and occuring for millions of years.
And disastrous in every case for the dominant species. Wonder how 6.5B people will fare.
You make some good points. But you fail to see that most of this Al Gore hysteria over so-called "global warming" is leftist inspired around the world and just another attempt to have centralized governmental control over more lives, you know as in the failed centralized socialistic system in the old Soviet Union, home base, Moscow?
Of course there has been global warming and there's been global cooling going on for eons. But we humans in the USA are not causing it nor affecting it. There is no reason why we should "cut back" on our life style while China and India do nothing overseas and while Bobby Kennedy and Al Gore do nothing about it here. When Al Gore moves into a tent and begins driving a Hugo, THEN and only then will I be interested in ANYthing he has to say. Ditto Bobby Kennedy. Meanwhile they can fly around in their personal fuel gulping jets and live in their overexpansive houses to their content and leave the rest of us alone.
When Al Gore moves into a tent and begins driving a Hugo, THEN and only then will I be interested in ANYthing he has to say. Ditto Bobby Kennedy.
I'd like to see all these folks live for just 1 month without using anything that made from, by or with oil. They would have to dropped butt naked in the middle of the desert for 1 month.
Actually "see" is a figure of speech.
What is a moderator? Is this someone who is employed by Netscape? One reason that you fins so few people agreeing with you is the fact that most of the time you're wrong to start with. It has nothing to do with conservatism, or liberalism. It's just as simple as "right or wrong".
Looks like you're the one who is wrong.
I've noticed that a disproportionate number of prominent Conservative posters have been banned from here since it became propeller.
Yeah and showing up on Digg
What is digg? Dumb question, I know.
Apparently, Netscape didn't let the moderators censor people in the manner that they do now.
Nobody has been banned for being a conservative. We have banned members, both liberal and conservative, for violations of our TOU, including abusive behavior, sock puppeting, spamming comment threads, and so forth. As for the "balance of the site," that is ultimately in the hands of the membership. We try to moderate but keep our thumbs off the scale as much as humanly possible.
"We try to moderate but keep our thumbs off the scale as much as humanly possible."
With all do respect James....and I really mean that...I dont think Neo got that memo.
You conservative crybabies...
Yeah, I know, it's almost as bad as the libs with Bush!
Yeah, we should allow ourselves to be censored.
I wasn't directing the comment at you, but there are other moderators who clearly display a bias and are antagonistic towards Conservative ideas. There is no denying that. There also has clearly been a change in the enforcement of the terms of service since the switch from Netscape and the balance of the site has shifted noticably. Sorry for being off topic. I'll stop here.
I personally fail to see how Neo merely pointing out when someone is blatently LYING or being a genocidal war-mongering racist is somehow antagonistic towards Conservative ideas (antagonistic to neo-con ideals, sure, since lying is all they've got to go on).
And I hadn't noticed any fewer of those lying bastaches around, anyway, so I'm pretty sure that's complete BS.
As long as you're unbiased...
Not at all. I loathe you disingenuous lying arseholes.
Interesting, I just think you are wrong and don't demonize you. I guess I'm have bought into the politics of personal destruction.
...and they ban Conservatives...classey.
I don't think that lying is a bootable offense. Plenty of people to correct the facts.
But it's tiring...
Who's been booted? Nothing to do with what I said.
Just pointing out that, contrary to dropdead's comment, there has been no noticeable shift, and he's just whining because neo participates and isn't on his side.
Neo intimidates those who don't agree with him and that is wrong when you wield the power of a moderator.
Were they really banned? or did they just quit using this site and move to another one?
A good way to tell is to look for any stories they might have submitted. Apparently when someone is banned, every record of them ever being here is wiped away.
If someone could explain why I would appreciate it. I like have the abilit to go back and referrence topics that have previously been discussed, and find it frustrating when entire stories are wiped clean.
Its not a new thing
http://humor.propeller.com/story/2007/07/26/gon...